Ubuntu May Move To Rolling Releases

formfeed writes "The register claims that 'Ubuntu is moving away from its established six-month-cycle and potentially to a future where software updates land on a daily basis.' While this sounds like a sudden change, it is apparently more of a long-term thought. The Register quotes Shuttleworth: '"Today we have a six-month release cycle," Shuttleworth said. "In an internet-oriented world, we need to be able to release something every day. That's an area we will put a lot of work into in the next five years. The small steps we are putting in to the Software Center today, they will go further and faster than people might have envisioned in the past."' But given that many of Shuttleworth's thoughts became decisions later on, it might be interesting to see, where this one leads. Interestingly enough, five years is about the time when Ubuntu will run out of letters."

Comments

Obvious problem is obvious

[erroneus]

Lately, there has been a gradual shift in Linux hardware support where distros are limiting support for older hardware. I understand why they are doing it, but by doing what Ubuntu is [thinking about] doing, it could literally result in a situation where one day your computer is supported and the next day, it's not. That's not a good thing.

Re:Obvious problem is obvious

[BadAnalogyGuy]

It didn't work when you left it. It didn't work when you came back.

That's pretty much the definition of stable.

Seen this many times

[BadAnalogyGuy]

You go from one release cycle style to another. Periodic releases to constant releases. And then back.

Each style has its advantages, but in the end you just end up changing for change's sake and no real benefit is gleaned one way or the other. It's a lot like reorganizing resources in a company. You move some people here, you transfer some people there, you change from a horizontal hierarchy to a more vertical one. Then in 18 months you change it back.

In the end, the guys on the ground doing all the nitty gritty work do the same job they've always done and the company keeps chugging along.

That being said, it's usually a case of management losing touch with the guys on the ground that causes this kind of shakeup. I wouldn't be surprised if Shuttleworth is a bit disappointed in how the business is going and is looking to change the sales story for Ubuntu. From the "stable and great" OS it is now to "cutting edge and always up to date" OS it could be with constant drops.

Here's a better idea...

[itsdapead]

Here's a better idea - go for more stability, not less. If Linux is maturing as a desktop OS then there shouldn't be a need for 6 monthly, let alone daily, updates.

Here's a better idea:

1. Drop the 6 month release cycle and make LTS the default option. Then people can install an OS with a sensible lifetime.

2. Don't push any updates unless they are critical security vulnerabilities.

3. Offer optional upgrades to the major application packages, drivers etc. as they become available and where possible, and keep interdependencies to a minimum - i.e. compile them against the original distro + any vital security patches, not the latest everything (statically link them if you have to - RAM is cheap now).

The problem with the current system comes for the less technical users who want to (or are sensibly advised to) stick with the packages in the official repositories. Currently, you may find that the only "official" way to get the latest office software is to upgrade your whole fricking operating system. Its like having to take the back axle off your car in order to replace the radio.

Remember this is Linux - if we /.ers want to compile our own kernel, install the latest Firefox beta from a source tarball, reformat the drive as ext6 or scour the interwebs for a suitable .deb of the very latest LibreOffice then there's nothing stopping us. Or, we can switch to a more bleeding edge distro. However, that might work for us, but it won't work for others - and even I don't want to install a new kernel just to run the latest word processor unless it really, really needs it.

The problem is particularly bad with Ubuntu: it can't be "the Linux for the rest of us" and bleeding edge, because "the rest of us" don't want to be obliged to upgrade our whole OS every 6 months just to get the latest OpenOffice.

...its understandable with commercial software where the company depends on brining in the upgrade fees, but why should Free Software care?